PDA

View Full Version : American executions and Scott Peterson case


ypsidan04
17-03-2005, 01:02
and executing the mentally retarded, which has not been banned to my knowledge. George W. Bush, as Texas governor, sent a man with an IQ lower than room temperature to his death.

I read today that practice was banned three years ago.

*I lost my original post! Oh well...*

freddie
17-03-2005, 12:18
Death sentance is a mockery. It's like society giving up on certain people and wanting to get rid of them, simply cause they're afraid of them. They'd rather remove them from existance then try to find solutions. In this case... I think Scott Petersen IS a sociopath and the jury had no problems hating him since he lacked any emotions during the trial. So they sentanced him to death based on their feelings towards him.

That's a part of the bigger issue here. The jury duty they have in America is WRONG. No criminal or civil trial from the States would ever hold any legal value in Europe or anywhere else. You just can't have 12 random laymans hearing a trial full of legal expressions and doctrines, then have them reach a verdict on a case without any legal expereiance from the past. That's how murderers get aquitted and innocent people executed. That's also the biggest reason for the institute of punitive danages in civil procedings and ridiculous compensations a sympathetic jury often gives to individuals sueing big corporations. Without any legal merit.

I watched an interview on Larry King with a juror from a trial where they aquitted the actor Robert Blake (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0086706/) of murdering his wife in 2001. The bastard tried to promote his CD of his memoirs of the trial!! Larry asked him a question and he just went completely ignored it and went "Oh Larry this trial was a terrible ordeal for me and you can read all about it on this CD I made during the trial, that's available for xx on xxxx.com." Are you fucking kidding me?? The guy just came of a jury duty of a murder trial where a plausable murderer went free, cause of lack of evidence and he's already trying to make A PROFIT? *stabs him in his capitalist chest*

We have jurors as well. 2 of them (or 4 in difficult cases) that preside beside the judge. basic difference though is that they are ALL legal experts - they need to pass the bar exam and have at least 10 years of experiance in law. See the difference? Why should there be any HINT of an unfair trial when a man's life is at stake? Or when there's a possibility a murderer could go free?

ypsidan04
18-03-2005, 01:04
That's a part of the bigger issue here. The jury duty they have in America is WRONG. No criminal or civil trial from the States would ever hold any legal value in Europe or anywhere else. You just can't have 12 random laymans hearing a trial full of legal expressions and doctrines, then have them reach a verdict on a case without any legal expereiance from the past. That's how murderers get aquitted and innocent people executed. That's also the biggest reason for the institute of punitive danages in civil procedings and ridiculous compensations a sympathetic jury often gives to individuals sueing big corporations. Without any legal merit.

We have jurors as well. 2 of them (or 4 in difficult cases) that preside beside the judge. basic difference though is that they are ALL legal experts - they need to pass the bar exam and have at least 10 years of experiance in law. See the difference? Why should there be any HINT of an unfair trial when a man's life is at stake? Or when there's a possibility a murderer could go free?

I agree, the way you describe in Europe is better. But it's in the US Constitution that suspected criminals will be tried by a jury "of their peers". So an amendment would have to be made and passed, which isn't easy.

Shakrin
18-03-2005, 05:43
But! You should never ignore the evidence they *have* found. And what if it *was* Scott Peterson who killed Laci and the unborn baby? I'm one of those people who agree that death sentence is a shamful thing to have, but you should never forget, that Scott Peterson *was* the strongest suspect in the case (Whatever the media said did not have any interference with the trial; Americans aren't *that* stupid, only Bush is.) and the *only* suspect. If in fact he was the killer, I think he deserves to die, for taking a life and a life of a unborn baby who never knew the meaning of life.

luxxi
18-03-2005, 11:59
Some people deserve to die. Death penalty should be kept and used but used sparingly.

:newyear:

madeldoe
18-03-2005, 20:20
no one has the right to determine the worth of another mans life, even if that man has committed unspeakable crimes. I think it's funny that a nation so deeply immersed in religious beliefs, can justify and condone taking a man's life. God supposedly wrote that man should not kill. Yet it is permitted here and almost made a public spectacle, because as the man dies family members look through a clear glass to watch and find solace. What good christians..




+ i've always felt that scott peterson was innocent, and still do..

luxxi
18-03-2005, 21:16
no one has the right to determine the worth of another mans life, even if that man has committed unspeakable crimes. I think it's funny that a nation so deeply immersed in religious beliefs, can justify and condone taking a man's life. God supposedly wrote that man should not kill. Yet it is permitted here and almost made a public spectacle, because as the man dies family members look through a clear glass to watch and find solace. What good christians..




+ i've always felt that scott peterson was innocent, and still do..

And how much is life of victim worth? God also wrote "an eye for an eye".......

:newyear:

freddie
18-03-2005, 22:28
And how much is life of victim worth? God also wrote "an eye for an eye".......

:newyear:

No he didn't. :p

luxxi
18-03-2005, 23:24
No he didn't. :p

He did. :yes:

:newyear:

Shakrin
19-03-2005, 00:11
he did.

But God isn't the issue here. We aren't talking about religious belifes, we are talking about what Scott Peterson may have or may have not went through with the killing. If Laci's parents were Christians, they sure as hell aren't now.

ypsidan04
19-03-2005, 00:15
and executing the mentally retarded, which has not been banned to my knowledge. George W. Bush, as Texas governor, sent a man with an IQ lower than room temperature to his death.

I read today that practice was banned three years ago.
He didn't!


God didn't write jack. Jesus didn't write jack. It was a group of Jesus's followers who people say were just middle men for God, but they were still just laymen.

And remember, those who wrote the Bible thought the world was flat and at the center of the universe. ;)


Whatever happened to God judging people? They say "don't judge people, that's God's job after they die..." But then most religious Christians are also death penalty supporters and anti-gay people. Sounds like personal judgement to me.

madeldoe
19-03-2005, 09:51
God didn't write jack


God "supposedly" wrote the ten commandments and handed it down to Moses to pass on to his followers..

freddie
19-03-2005, 12:31
He did. :yes:

:newyear:

He did NOT.

God "supposedly" wrote the ten commandments and handed it down to Moses to pass on to his followers..

Yes, but then they weren't aware of the hallucinatory effect of certain sorts of "home medicine". They are now, so most people who "speak to God" these days are properlly handled. :rolleyes:

Taito_Magatsu
19-03-2005, 20:45
...

People, this isn't a god issue, because, if you believe in the bible god, at the same time he says that killing is wrong, you must remember that it was also him who ordered to invade and destroy many cities and tribes mostly because they didn't worshipped him . If you stay on this, you'll remain on these "did or did not" for pages.

ypsidan04
19-03-2005, 20:51
He did. :yes:

:newyear:

If you guys don't stop.... :znaika: We're gonna have Forre or Haku come on over, and you're not gonna like it. :p

luxxi
19-03-2005, 20:54
If you guys don't stop.... :znaika: We're gonna have Forre or Haku come on over, and you're not gonna like it. :p

Yeah? :nunu: Like I'm scared now..... :spy:

:newyear:

Shakrin
19-03-2005, 21:31
no kidding. :bebebe:

Shakrin
19-03-2005, 21:42
well aren't you guys just spewing with maturity. ;)

taty994945
20-03-2005, 00:53
This is great, keep it up people!

Bitty2002
20-03-2005, 22:52
I think people are missing the hugest point possible. If one is a follower of Christianity- they have a different set of rules/beliefs. Christians are supposed to regard the Old Testament as a book that details basic principles- like the ten commandments. From it you grab your basic moral principles- all told through amazing stories- real or not- who cares really. Perhaps fundamentalist Christians believe you are supposed to believe every word to be true- but in my personal- more moderate Christian beliefs the Old testament should be read like a "the moral of the story is..." It is also a relatively interesting historical document if you are looking at it on a purely non-religious way.

NOW- the KEY- God did say invade this or that, you are my chosen people, eye for an eye, etc. BUT!!!! it was in the OLD testament. This is something that totally and completely irks me. Christians today primarily use the old testament to also denounce homosexuals- since 99% of the quotes against "homosexuality" (male prostitution) are in the OLD testament. Okay my point? If you are a F**** Christian you believe in Jesus. Jesus CHANGED everything.

The idea is that God sent down Jesus for two fold- one to experience humanity first-hand- to become an empathetic God but also primarily to make the ultimate sacrifice such that sins would be forgiven for believers. Here's another thing that irritates me. A lot of people argue- well that is a cop out- all I have to do is say I believe in Jesus and I am in heaven? So I can sin all I want? No that isn't the case. People forget one thing. If you truly take Jesus into your heart- you wouldn't live a life only of sin. You wouldn't look at it like- oh so now I can sin all I want? If you did, you don't truly have Jesus in your heart.

Okay so Jesus came- God become an empathetic God- one because he learned about being human and two because Jesus was a gift...a sacrifice. He was meant to change things. No longer is it eye for an eye. Some people also argue that Jesus was sent by God because people were being totally misled- the old testament was actually a misrepresentation of God's principles- eye for an eye was never a principle- that it was a human creation. Jesus was sent to "correct this wrong". Either way- the point is that after Jesus came- most of the Old testament’s eye for an eye shit flies out the window- either God changed or God corrected human misinterpretation. So for any Christian to quote directly from the Old testament without comparing it to the New is making a huge, gross mistake. They are completely over looking the whole point of Jesus and therefore completely over looking the whole point of Christianity.

I can't speak for other religions who do not believe in Jesus as a savior- but in a Christian nation….- and let's not argue that the US isn't- cause it is, regardless of its freedom of religion standings. The nation is still founded/based in Christian beliefs. One would think, given that idea, the death penalty would be looked upon more harshly. Of course, a lot Christians these days tend to have an extremely skewed view on principles. They go more for quotes than over all moral principles.

EDIT: And let me add- many people also argue about whether the Bible is truly the word of God written through the hands of humans or simply a document written by man. I for one, won't argue either way on the original document- I haven't seen it nor would I understand it even if I did. HOWEVER, I will argue to my death, lol, that it was simply man who has written translation after translation of the Bible. NIV, King James...why are there different versions of the ONE TRUTH?? Because English and other languages have like 10+ times the number of words and synonyms etc. as the original language of the Bible- thus we are left with huge debates like- the word for homosexuality COULD be translated as male prostitute- which totally destroys everything that people spout off about how sinful homosexual consensual committed love is. Prostitution, regardless of gender, is considered wrong in the Bible. But is love irregardless of gender? I argue this question isn't answered in the original Bible- only in translations- where bias goes into each word.

freddie
21-03-2005, 00:42
I thought it was kind of a given that man wrote the Bible, just like every other religious work out there. I mean... there's no proof of God, while there is circumstantial historic proof that man did write it. We're walking on touchy ground here with deeply religious people, but even most of them these days aren't blind enough to say that the Bible is literaly the "word of God". And it is true as well, what you said about translations: it was translated from hebrew to greek, then from greek to latin and from latin to other languages. Every new edition had it's added and/or misinterpreted parts. You lost HUGE amount of information (and meaning) with only one translation, let alone 3. Most people who're well familiar with the bible would be surprised how different the translations coming DIRECTLY from hebrew are. Because the official version is still latin one - which was altered through 2 translations already.

Think of it like this: We had Friends (the Sit-Com), on Slovene TV. Most people who don't understand english just didn't get it, despite the subtitles. You have to know a langauge not just grammatically, but also have a deep social understanding of it. Many puns and jokes faded away, or sounded not quite right, once you read the slovene subtitle. Were I only to understand Slovene and relly on the subtitles only, I'd think the show SUCKED. And we're talking about a country that isn't removied in time from us, and we pretty much have the same/similar habits and social behaviours... and such a simple thing as a Sit-Com is almost impossible to translate to another language. Now imagine trying to translate a religious text, that was written by some other culture, using another language, following different social paterns and behaviours and even hundreds of years removed in time from the country of the texts origin... and you'd pretty much get the situation of the Bible first "alteration" when it was translated from hebrew to greek. And mind you that another alteration like that followed, with it's translation to latin. A completely different culture again, and again removed in time, It's surprising anything at all stayed like it was in the original.

About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people. :p

forre
21-03-2005, 09:16
Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Arameic.
New Testament was written in Greek.

I agree on the translations' issue and I'd like to add that according to the research, the story was written down many years after Jesus' death. It simply was passed from mouth to mouth.

Existence of multiple religions speaks against existence of God in itself. If God really wanted to pass a message to people, it would simply make everyone heard, I mean - every single person living that time. God is enough powerful, I suppose, to perform that trick. So what's all farce about the Bible, Koran and other scripts? It was the tool of getting power over people and since that time the idea of different gods and different super powers was popular and well accepted, it was the easiest way for any leader to use this idea to establish its power.

What about all miracles and healers and wonders in this life? Hmmm .. what about electicity, heart transplantation, black holes and a man walking on the Moon? Show that to anyone 1000 years ago and be their new god. What do I want to say by this? We learned and discovered many interesting things during the centuries and we will continue our research because we will always want a goddamn good explanation. That's in our nature, isn't it? ;)

If to measure in centuries, religion is singing its last song. It simply won't be able to correspond to the modern societies so sooner or later any religion will loose any sense at all. We are evolving intellectually too and our morality doesn't necessarilly need to be based on religious teachings. We can be good, kind and helping not because God said this and that and we are afraid to be punished by it, but because that's the only way to experience the joy of life. Positive emotions are very good natural stimulators. I know, I didn't say anything new. People have known that for centuries.

Adds:
Sorry, forgot about the initial subject. Execution is a one-way road. It can't be undone. If by a mistake a person who didn't do THAT gets executed, we can hardly speak about any justice at all. It's another murder in the name of justice and God and whatever.

It's a huge dilemma for many juridical structures - how do deal with mentally retarted people and psycho cases.

coolasfcuk
21-03-2005, 15:57
Interesting subject you've started here .... I will not say much right now ... but I am currently reading Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" .. very interesting, and well fitting in your discussion .... maybe when i feel a bit 'smarter' about the subject after reading it, i will come and discuss :gigi:

madeldoe
21-03-2005, 22:13
About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people. :p

i couldnt agree more! :yes:

ypsidan04
21-03-2005, 22:41
This is something that totally and completely irks me. Christians today primarily use the old testament to also denounce homosexuals- since 99% of the quotes against "homosexuality" (male prostitution) are in the OLD testament.

Right. They reject the Old Testament, and follow the New Testament. EXCEPT when following the Old Testament suits their needs. Like "Man shall not lie with Man. God hates that." in Leviticus, I think. These religious types will ignore the parts that are too obsurd to follow in 2005, but refuse to stop referencing the parts that will further their goals. They need to make up their minds. Either start preaching that a couple cannot sleep in the same bed while the wife is having her period (that's just scratching the surface), or stop using the scripture to justify your discrimination of homosexuals, among other issues. If you want to be heterosexist (a better term for homophobia), then fine, but, to quote what a former teacher of mine would say when someone took the lord's name in vain, "don't bring him into this".

About the other thing: yeah, catholics are HUGE hypocrits. They'll apply those religious rules when they serve a purpose to them, and when they don't, they'll just ignore. Christianity is quickly becoming the Budhism of the 21st century. A fad. Take from it what pleases you and disregard the rest. Looking at it from the bigger picture just makes things to complicated for most people. :p

Thank you. :)

bpro50
22-03-2005, 02:19
Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Arameic.
New Testament was written in Greek.


Existence of multiple religions speaks against existence of God in itself. If God really wanted to pass a message to people, it would simply make everyone heard, I mean - every single person living that time. God is enough powerful, I suppose, to perform that trick. So what's all farce about the Bible, Koran and other scripts? It was the tool of getting power over people and since that time the idea of different gods and different super powers was popular and well accepted, it was the easiest way for any leader to use this idea to establish its power.


Wrong account of history. Throughout the ages and from one kingdom to another, religion has been the undoing of despots. The easiest way for leaders to exhibit power was not religion but fear and tyranny. True religion offers love, forgiveness, kindness and freedom. Concepts quite foreign to those that want power over others. Many leaders have embraced a form of religion, even Hitler tried to manipulate religious leaders to his own end. But, in the end they revealed themselves as nothing more than tyrants and history reveals them for what they were - beasts. True religion empowers, it is not a tool for someone to manipulate others. There is nothing harder than trying to be a political leader and doing under the guise of religion. I believe that is one reason why many modern day political movements sought to do away with religion altogether. If religion were an easy tool to manipulate a society you can bet modern day communist would have employed it.

forre
22-03-2005, 06:20
bpro50, I said it was. The things have changed now. Religions have been adapted to serve the goals of politicians through those years and that hardly can be called "wrong account of history".

luxxi
23-03-2005, 00:58
What about all miracles and healers and wonders in this life? Hmmm .. what about electicity, heart transplantation, black holes and a man walking on the Moon? Show that to anyone 1000 years ago and be their new god. What do I want to say by this? We learned and discovered many interesting things during the centuries and we will continue our research because we will always want a goddamn good explanation. That's in our nature, isn't it? ;)

So? How does this disprove religion? Discovery of black holes does not change our perception of what is right and what is wrong. Heart surgery does not lessen out fear of death. Electricity does not tell us what happens to us after we die.


If to measure in centuries, religion is singing its last song.

And on what do you base this assumption? Rise of religious right in US? Rise of islamic movements in muslim countries? Strenghtening of radical jewish parties in Israel?

Soviets and Chinese predicted removal of religion. Didn't quite happen.


It simply won't be able to correspond to the modern societies so sooner or later any religion will loose any sense at all. We are evolving intellectually too and our morality doesn't necessarilly need to be based on religious teachings.

Maybe not in the future but right now it does. And we woun't change morals. Murder will be considered wrong in the future as well. And it will be considered wrong because we consider it wrong now. And we consider it wrong because it was considered wrong before. And like it or not, it was consider wrong because of religion.


We can be good, kind and helping not because God said this and that and we are afraid to be punished by it, but because that's the only way to experience the joy of life. Positive emotions are very good natural stimulators. I know, I didn't say anything new. People have known that for centuries.

And what joys of life would that be?

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 06:17
So? How does this disprove religion? Discovery of black holes does not change our perception of what is right and what is wrong. Heart surgery does not lessen out fear of death. Electricity does not tell us what happens to us after we die.
To be able to know what is right and what is wrong you don't need a religion generally. I was speaking about disoveries as an example. We reached not very far and there's plenty of things to discover which will sooner or later give explanations to parapsychotic fenomenas and may answer the question what lies beyond the life. We'll see. Even if a few people witnessed the rise of Jesus, it doesn't mean that God exists. There's no proof of it whatsoever. We have the stories those were compiled into books like Bible and that's all.

And on what do you base this assumption? Rise of religious right in US? Rise of islamic movements in muslim countries? Strenghtening of radical jewish parties in Israel?
On the fact that church plays a minor role in people's life. On the fact that church disgraced itself so many times. There's no rise or islamic movements. There's an export of the religion as people move around the world but the number of believers isn't increasing. Russia and China face a different development as religions have been forbidden in those countries for many years. Not entirely forbidden but showing up in a church could damage your carreer.

Maybe not in the future but right now it does. And we woun't change morals. Murder will be considered wrong in the future as well. And it will be considered wrong because we consider it wrong now. And we consider it wrong because it was considered wrong before. And like it or not, it was consider wrong because of religion.
Oh really? What about Jahad?
Soviets and Chinese predicted removal of religion. Didn't quite happen.
Too soon. The removal won't happen but instead the church will die out as a dino.
And what joys of life would that be?
It depends on what makes you happy. Do you need religion for that?

luxxi
23-03-2005, 09:45
To be able to know what is right and what is wrong you don't need a religion generally. I was speaking about disoveries as an example. We reached not very far and there's plenty of things to discover which will sooner or later give explanations to parapsychotic fenomenas and may answer the question what lies beyond the life. We'll see. Even if a few people witnessed the rise of Jesus, it doesn't mean that God exists. There's no proof of it whatsoever. We have the stories those were compiled into books like Bible and that's all.

No, but morals are inherited from previous geneations. And they based them on religion.

Just because people aren't religious anymore doesn't mean they'll stop believing murder is wrong. And that murder is wrong is based on religion.


On the fact that church plays a minor role in people's life. On the fact that church disgraced itself so many times.

Once again, what do you base this on? Religion is on the rise in US, islamic world, Israel, Russia, China....


There's no rise or islamic movements.

No? Who brought 500.000 people to beirut to demonstrate for Syrian presence in Lebanon? Hezbollah, islamic movement. Who were biggest winners in Iraq? United Iraqi Alliance, shi'ia based group. And SCIRI. Supreme council for ISlamic revolution in Iraq. Who were biggest winners in saudia? Islamists.

Open your eyes. Anytime you have something aproaching fair elections in muslim world islamic parties win.


There's an export of the religion as people move around the world but the number of believers isn't increasing. Russia and China face a different development as religions have been forbidden in those countries for many years. Not entirely forbidden but showing up in a church could damage your carreer.

No? You have any data to back this up?


Oh really? What about Jahad?


Who? :spy:


Too soon. The removal won't happen but instead the church will die out as a dino.


How many times this was predicted. Didn't happen yet.


It depends on what makes you happy. Do you need religion for that?

Religion no. Morals yes. And morals are religion based.

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 15:34
No, but morals are inherited from previous geneations. And they based them on religion.
Just because people aren't religious anymore doesn't mean they'll stop believing murder is wrong. And that murder is wrong is based on religion.
This statement is as conclusive as mine. You can't proove that the values are based on religion as I can't proove the opposite. Religion adopted values those existed before. The history of mankind didn't begin some 3 000 years ago.Once again, what do you base this on? Religion is on the rise in US, islamic world, Israel, Russia, China....
On its fall in Europe.
No? You have any data to back this up?
To back up wich of 2 statements?
Who?
Jihad, I meant. Sorry, spelling.
How many times this was predicted. Didn't happen yet.
And how many?
Religion no. Morals yes. And morals are religion based.
As said under the first quote in this post - a conclusive statement. We can't know.

luxxi
23-03-2005, 18:11
This statement is as conclusive as mine. You can't proove that the values are based on religion as I can't proove the opposite. Religion adopted values those existed before.

I disagree. Morals developed when civilisations developed. and when civilisations developed so did religion. When our ancestors lived in caves there were no morals. It was rule of the strongest.


The history of mankind didn't begin some 3 000 years ago.

Neither did religion.


On its fall in Europe.


It's on the rise elsewhere. And Europe is only small part of the world.


To back up wich of 2 statements?


That religion is on the decline.


Jihad, I meant. Sorry, spelling.


Well, first we must clarify which jihad we are talking about. Greater or smaller. But let's assume we are talking about lesser one. In rules on fighting jihad murder is prohibited. As are attacks on civilians, religious buildings etc.

If the term is hijacked and abused it doesn't change it's meaning.


And how many?


Well, communist nations tried. they failed. germans tried to destroy jewish faith 8together with Jews). They failed. They tried to do away with christianity. they failed.

History of attempts to destroy a religion is history of failures. Only way to destroy religion is to kill everybody who is believer. This, however, worked several times.


As said under the first quote in this post - a conclusive statement. We can't know.

Civilisation, religion and morals went hand in hand. I'd say that is pretty good evidence.

Besides Western culture is called judeo-christian. I wonder why, if our morals aren't based on religion. :spy:

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 18:50
Okay, the discussion here is narrowed down to two issues.
1. Moral is formed by religion.
2. Religion is on the rise/fall.

1. Religion didn't create any morality. Morality is a constantly changing category. Religion applies its morality to serve its goals. Jihad is turned into murder, catholic church has burnt thousands of people just because they didn't believe in God, holy crusades were done in the name of God. So, religion is a tool to excersice the power.

2. It is in Europe and Europe is a big part of the world. It's the most advanced too (along with the Satates, Australia and Japan). Russia was more religious before its revolution than now and statistically the religion is simply restoring itself there. It was gone for a century - artificially. It depends on how you look at the statistics.

Now, back to the executions. How could it happen that USA, Asia and Middle East are more religious than Europe and can't come to the point to abolish executions while Europe could do it? Where is logic?

luxxi
23-03-2005, 19:01
Okay, the discussion here is narrowed down to two issues.
1. Moral is formed by religion.
2. Religion is on the rise/fall.

More or less.


1. Religion didn't create any morality. Morality is a constantly changing category.

Basics remain the same. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Marriage. All these are based on religion.


Religion applies its morality to serve its goals.

People use religion to achieve their goals.


Jihad is turned into murder, catholic church has burnt thousands of people just because they didn't believe in God, holy crusades were done in the name of God. So, religion is a tool to excersice the power.

Religion is hijacked to achieve temporal goals.


2. It is in Europe and Europe is a big part of the world. It's the most advanced too (along with the Satates, Australia and Japan).

It's small part of the world. And you are lumping together countries that are different. What is Jepan doing here?

Religion is on the rise in US. It may be in decline in Europe. Don't know about Japan and Australia. It's on the rise in muslim countries. It's on the rise in Africa.


Russia was more religious before its revolution than now and statistically the religion is simply restoring itself there. It was gone for a century - artificially. It depends on how you look at the statistics.

So it isn't on the decline as you claimed before?


Now, back to the executions. How could it happen that USA, Asia and Middle East are more religious than Europe and can't come to the point to abolish executions while Europe could do it? Where is logic?

Most religions have "eye for an eye concept". It stems from there.

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 19:23
Basics remain the same. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Marriage. All these are based on religion.
And where from did religion get these values? Is it possible that people just realised that killing, stealing and cheating can't unify people?

Russia and China has a different story I said. The religion isn't on the rise there if to take a 300 years span. If you take a 100 years span - it is on the rise but not really on the rise - sooner on resurrection, i.e. back from the dead. Africa has always been extremely religious and it's the least developed region of the world too. What do you want from people those think that having a sexual intercourse with a child can heal AIDS? :rolleyes: As for the States? A phenomena for sure.

"Eye for an eye concept" - shouldn't even be there. Murder is a murder, that's it. You don't need to apply religion to realise that.

luxxi
23-03-2005, 19:31
And where from did religion get these values? Is it possible that people just realised that killing, stealing and cheating can't unify people?

Or amybe they invented religion and passed these morals from it because they knew that if they speak for God people will listen more than if they speak for themselves.


Russia and China has a different story I said. The religion isn't on the rise there if to take a 300 years span.

If you tkae 300 year span then religion isn't on decline in europe as well.


If you take a 100 years span - it is on the rise but not really on the rise - sooner on resurrection, i.e. back from the dead.

So if you take short span it's ont he rise. If you take longer span it's more or less same. So why do you claim it's on the decline? :spy:


Africa has always been extremely religious and it's the least developed region of the world too. What do you want from people those think that having a sexual intercourse with a child can heal AIDS?

So why are you saying religion is on the decline? :spy:


:rolleyes: As for the States? A phenomena for sure.

So in US religion isn't on the decline as well? :confused:


"Eye for an eye concept" - shouldn't even be there. Murder is a murder, that's it. You don't need to apply religion to realise that.

Hmmmmm, people who bashed other people over the head with rocks to take over their caves didn't think so.

As for murder being murder. True. It remains open what punishment should there be. Why are people saying state is murdering people with death penalty but they don't say state kidnaps them when they are put in prison? :spy:

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 19:38
Why do I say that? Because if to take a 300 time span - religion was prevailing in all countries of the world. Now we have a different picture. I don't speak about Christian or Islamic trends, I speak about different religions.

So a man uses religion to achieve its goals? Who did create religion and for what?

luxxi
23-03-2005, 19:57
Why do I say that? Because if to take a 300 time span - religion was prevailing in all countries of the world. Now we have a different picture. I don't speak about Christian or Islamic trends, I speak about different religions.

And of those 300 years decline is present in past 50 or so. And even that in small aprt of the world.

Want to say religion is in decline in Europe recently? Fine, that's true?
Want to say religion is in decline overall? That's not true.


So a man uses religion to achieve its goals?

If your goal is salvation then yes. Anything wrong with that?


Who did create religion and for what?

I don't know, I never studied culture. I'd say to explain world around him. Sun rises? Must be a god that travells around the sky? Rivers flood? Must be god living in river that is angry.

:newyear:

forre
23-03-2005, 20:13
If your goal is salvation then yes.
And if your goal is the opposite? I don't even want to take any examples. A man wanted power. You can't become powerful only by destroying or killing, first you need to give. The one who gives has the power. After you can kill using this power.

luxxi
23-03-2005, 23:52
And if your goal is the opposite?

Why would anybody deliberatly damn his soul? :ithink:


I don't even want to take any examples. A man wanted power. You can't become powerful only by destroying or killing, first you need to give. The one who gives has the power. After you can kill using this power.

Only if you ahve soemthing people want and you are willing to give.

:newyear:

forre
29-03-2005, 06:09
Only if you ahve soemthing people want and you are willing to give.
:newyear:
If you want power, then you'd better get that something.

ypsidan04
31-03-2005, 02:35
Wow. This has seriously taken off. And is unrecognizible from it's beginnings. :p But that's not a problem.

(no time to read all of the stuff I missed :o )